"'^SinortLunn 
26  MAY  1914 


HISTORY  AND  MEANING 
OF  THE  PROPOSED  NEW  CHARTER 
FOR  CAMBRIDGE 


October  24,  1911 


BY 

LEWIS  JEROME  JOHNSON 


[Reprinted  from  Proceedings  of  The  Cambridge 
Historical  Society,  VI] 


C'<\c.U 

\°>U  6 


w 


iWlVHHSITY  or  H.UW 
20  MAY  1514 


HISTORY  AND  MEANING  OF  THE  PROPOSED  NEW 
CHARTER  FOR  CAMBRIDGE 

V 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  I  am  afraid  I  may  have 
to  offer  the  history  and  meaning  of  the  proposed  ne»w  Cambridge 
charter  in  a  somewhat  intertwined  form ;  there  will  be  some  “  his¬ 
tory  ”  and  I  hope  some  “  meaning.’’  I  think  possibly,  however, 
they  will  run  along  together  without  confusion. 

The  history  of  the  Cambridge  charter  might  include  the  history 
of  the  democratic  movement  in  government  which  has  been  going 
on  for  centuries.  But  I  am  sure  that  I  shall  have  your  approval  if 
I  skip  these  centuries  and  come  down  at  once  to  the  last  decade,  and 
even  perhaps  to  the  last  two  years.  In  the  last  ten  years  most 
significant  progress  has  been  made  in  devising  means  for  improving 
American  city  government.  The  last  decade  is,  in  fact,  the  most 
interesting  one  in  our  history  in  this  respect.  It  is  gratifying  to 
us  who  love  our  old  Massachusetts  traditions  that  this  decade  seems 
to  be  making  effective  the  hopes  and  aspirations  which  we  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts  have  held  for  generations.  It  is  gratifying  to  be  able  to 
reflect  that  our  purposes  and  ideals  have  been  correct  all  the  time 
and  that  defective  details  in  the  machinery  account  in  the  main  for 
not  securing  the  ends  desired.  From  the  experience  of  the  last  two 
decades,  and  of  the  last  decade  particularly,  we  have  learned  how 
to  correct  some  of  the  worst  of  these  mistakes.  This  seems  par¬ 
ticularly  clear  to  me  because  it  falls  within  the  line  of  my  profession, 
that  of  an  engineer.  Our  purpose  was  fine,  but  defects  in  details 
have  become  evident.  What  to  do  seems  clear. 

These  four  lines  from  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  the  Constitution  of 
Massachusetts,  adopted  a  century  and  a  third  ago,  express  in  a  few 
words,  which  cannot  be  bettered  to-day,  what  our  purpose  was  and 
I  believe  is  still : 


54 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  [Oct 


“  Art.  VII.  Government  is  instituted  for  the  common  good;  for  the 
protection,  safety,  prosperity,  and  happiness  of  the  people ;  and  not  for 
the  profit,  honor,  or  private  interest  of  any  one  man,  family,  or  class  of 
men.” 

But  the  private  interests  of  various  men  have  found  numerous 
ways  to  creep  in  and  gain  precedence  in  government  —  in  cities 
and  States  and  in  the  nation.  They  have  intrenched  themselves  in 
the  institutions  set  up  to  keep  them  in  check.  What  was  worked 
out  —  the  checks  and  balances,  and  all  the  rest  —  was  a  system 
which  conceivably  might  work  if  economic  conditions  never  put 
temptations  in  men’s  way  and  if  various  other  things  were  so  which 
are  not.  But,  be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  a  system  which  has  notoriously 
failed  to  produce  the  desired  results,  particularly  in  our  cities.  One 
of  our  chief  national  causes  for  disappointment  has  been  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  our  cities,  but  to-day  we  think  we  see  pretty  good  rea¬ 
sons  why  that  failure  has  occurred.  In  my  opinion,  we  started  by 
misunderstanding  the  nature  of  the  city  problem.  We  have  been 
firm  in  the  faith  that  our  form  of  city  government  must  be  in  the 
main  correct  because  it  involves  the  federal  form  of  checks  and 
balances,  the  Montesquieu  fetich,  fascination  with  which  was  one 
of  the  worst  of  the  fathers’  errors.  Open  to  grave  question 
as  this  principle  is  in  general,  it  is  particularly  unsuited  to  city 
organization.  For  city  government  is  mainly  executive,  and  effi¬ 
ciency,  simplicity,  and  responsiveness  to  the  public  will  would 
seem  obviously  to  be  prime  requisites.  But,  unfortunately,  as  our 
cities  developed,  we  thoughtlessly  applied  to  them  the  federal  form 
of  government.  Results  were  bad.  For  decades  we  contented  our¬ 
selves  by  scolding  our  good  citizens  because  they  did  not  make  this 
old  arrangement  work.  We  assumed  that  if  anything  of  so  re¬ 
spectable  an  origin  did  not  work  some  person  must  be  to  blame. 
W e  see,  however,  that  something  else  must  be  done.  W e  are  coming 
to  see  that  it  is  but  a  waste  of  time  and  energy  trying  to  beseech 
and  scold  our  best  citizens  into  jumping  to  the  task  of  making  the 
venerable  system  work.  It  might  work,  I  admit,  if  everybody  were 
a  sort  of  Columbus  for  daring,  and  a  St.  Thomas  for  self-abnega¬ 
tion.  But  our  citizens  are  not  all  of  such  a  type.  Meanwhile  the 
same  old  system  has  gone  right  on  doing  its  harm. 

In  order  to  start  the  American  citizen  straight  on  this  thing,  it 


1911.]  HISTORY,  ETC.,  OF  PROPOSED  NEW  CHARTER  55 


required  a  physical  catastrophe  of  appalling  magnitude.  When  the 
waters  had  subsided  from  a  devastated  city,  the  people  of  Galveston 
saw  that  something  both  intelligent  and  radical  had  to  be  done. 
The  politicians  stepped  aside  at  once.  They  said,  “  While  ordinary 
conditions  suit  our  purposes  finely,  heaven  knows  there  is  nothing 
in  this  situation  for  us  ;  we  surrender.”  So  there  was  appointed  a 
commission  of  five  men  to  succeed  them,  violating  tradition  after 
tradition,  and  discarding  particularly  those  happy  havens  for  inef¬ 
ficiency  and  corruption,  the  double  chamber  system  and  divided 
powers.  These  results  were  so  good  that  the  neighboring  city  of 
Houston  said,  “  W ell,  if  that  thing  works  so  well  in  the  wrecked 
city  of  Galveston,  why  can  it  not  work  well  in  a  city  that  is  not  yet 
destroyed  ?  ”  and  so  they  followed  suit  in  Houston,  and  so  it  has 
gone  on  from  those  beginnings  right  through  the  country.  The 
form  of  city  government  which  has  constantly  and  persistently  been 
getting  American  cities  into  trouble  is  clearly  doomed.  We  shall 
doubtless  have  a  wide  range  of  experiments  in  the  search  for  im¬ 
provement,  but  it  looks  as  if  it  would  be  pretty  hard  to  get  far 
away  from  the  so-called  commission  form. 

The  Galveston  charter  discarded  the  old  form,  root  and  branch, 
and  put  all  the  powers  of  the  city  into  the  hands  of  a  single  board 
of  five  responsible  persons,  elected  at  large,  and  thus  established 
concentration  of  power  and  responsibility.  That  was  an  enormous 
stride  forward.  From  the  point  of  view  of  efficiency,  it  covered 
the  ground.  It  also  attained  simplicity. 

Now,  the  spread  of  this  sort  of  thing  throughout  the  country  was 
greatly  hastened  by  the  work  of  Des  Moines.  There  they  retained 
the  simplicity  and  efficiency  of  the  Galveston  form,  but  added  a 
new,  though,  for  permanently  good  results,  probably  indispensable 
feature,  the  power  of  direct  popular  control  of  the  commission 
through  the  Initiative  and  Referendum  and  Recall.  This  gives 
what  should  be  an  effective  means  of  controlling  the  city  business, 
however  the  officers  may  be  elected.  In  Galveston  the  way  it  has 
worked  out,  the  publicity  and  conspicuousness  attending  all  that 
these  five  men  do,  has  been  such  as  to  produce  admirable  results. 
In  Des  Moines  they  not  only  have  all  that,  but  have  secured  more  ; 
they  have  the  Initiative,  by  which  the  people  can  pass  a  measure 
over  the  head  of  the  council ;  the  Referendum,  by  which  the  people 


56 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  [Oct. 


can,  by  popular  vote,  veto  an  act  of  the  city  council ;  and  the  Recall, 
whereby  the  people  can  remove  a  commissioner  from  office  before 
the  expiration  of  his  term. 

Now,  that  Des  Moines  charter  was  adopted  in  1907  and  went 
into  effect  in  1908.  The  germination  of  the  seed  that  was  planted 
in  Galveston  in  1901  had  been  comparatively  slow ;  the  growth 
was  bound  to  come,  but  other  cities  were  getting  the  news  and  be¬ 
ginning  to  think.  The  word  came  to  Cambridge  and  this  vicinity 
largely  through  President  Eliot.  He,  as  some  of  you  will  recollect, 
returning  from  a  trip  that  he  had  been  making  among  the  Texas 
cities,  told  of  the  marvelous  results  that  had  been  obtained,  prin¬ 
cipally  in  Houston.  He  reported  asking  one  of  the  commissioners 
how  they  could  build  all  those  schoolhouses  and  build  all  those 
streets,  and  all  that  without  a  bond  issue  and  with  a  reduction  in 
the  tax  rate.  The  commissioner’s  reply,  “We  are  getting  a  dollar’s 
worth  of  government  for  each  dollar’s  worth  of  taxes  collected,” 
arrested  attention.  This  kind  of  news  was  being  carried  elsewhere 
and  was  taking  effect.  The  spread  of  the  commission  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment  then  began  in  earnest,  and  became  so  rapid,  and  is  now  so 
rapid,  that  we  do  not  hope  to  keep  the  literature  for  our  charter 
campaign  up  to  date ;  it  is  changing  so  fast  that  I  think  our  latest 
literature  is  already  somewhat  behind  the  times.  This  movement 
progresses  in  spite  of  the  combined  opposition,  generally,  of  the 
political  machines  of  both  parties  and  of  all  the  other  special  inter, 
ests  that  profit  by  a  bad  city  government.  There  are  those  in  a 
community  who  like  to  have  the  city  administration  run  with  a  lit¬ 
tle  favoritism  here  and  there,  and  sometimes  with  a  great  deal  of 
favoritism.  They  naturally  make  a  point  of  standing  in  with  the 
political  machines  of  both  parties. 

Fine  as  the  results  had  already  been,  and  high  as  was  the  per¬ 
fection  in  form  after  the  Des  Moines  contribution,  it  seemed  clear 
that  it  would  do  no  harm  for  us  in  Cambridge  to  bide  our  time  for 
a  while.  Better  things  still  were  likely  to  develop. 

Two  years  ago,  the  little  city  of  Grand  Junction  in  Colorado  had 
scarcely  been  heard  of ;  but,  like  many  another  small  place,  it  was 
destined  to  have  a  marked  effect  on  the  thought  and  practice  of 
men.  Two  years  ago,  Grand  Junction  adopted  a  new  charter  of 
the  commission  sort,  including  all  the  good  features  of  the  Des 


1911.]  HISTORY,  ETC.,  OF  PROPOSED  NEW  CHARTER  57 


Moines  plan,  but  introduced  a  new  system  of  electing  officers  —  an 
attractive  system  of  preferential  voting.  This  seemed  to  certain 
citizens  of  Cambridge  to  be  the  capsheaf,  so  to  speak,  of  the  devel¬ 
oping  form  of  city  charter.  It  then  looked  to  them  as  if  energy, 
experience,  and  political  genius  had  developed  what  we  might 
safely  assume  to  be  the  standard  modern  form  of  American  city 
charter.  It  looked  then  as  if  we  might  assume  that  the  type  of 
construction  best  adapted  for  the  purpose,  so  far  as  our  experience 
would  permit  it,  had  been  worked  out ;  and  the  question  at  once 
arose,  Would  it  not  be  a  pretty  good  thing  to  give  the  citizens  of 
Cambridge  an  opportunity  to  adopt  an  up-to-date  charter  of  this 
kind?  It  was  in  the  fall  of  1909  that  that  form  of  election  was  de¬ 
veloped  and  tested.  The  previous  lack  of  so  important  an  improve¬ 
ment  was  no  doubt  the  reason  why  the  Cambridge  commission  charter 
movement  had  not  developed  before.  The  appearance  of  preferen¬ 
tial  voting  is,  at  all  events,  the  main  cause  for  this  charter’s  coming 
up  at  this  time,  and  since  it  is  the  greatest  novelty  of  the  charter,  per¬ 
haps  it  will  be  appropriate  for  me  to  devote  special  attention  to  it. 

There  seems  to  be  universal  agreement  that  the  proper  method 
of  nomination  is  by  non-partisan  petition  of  a  moderate  number  of 
voters  —  the  number  of  signatures  put  as  low  as  possible  consistent 
with  decorum.  The  idea  is  to  give  unorganized  bodies  of  voters 
the  least  possible  difficulty  in  putting  a  favorite  in  nomination. 
This  allows  the  nominations  to  be  perfectly  free  and  open  to  any 
candidate  for  whom  there  could  be  any  hope  of  election.  In  Los 
Angeles  one  hundred  signatures  secure  a  nomination ;  in  Spokane, 
twenty-five  ;  in  Des  Moines,  twenty-five ;  in  Lynn  and  Haverhill, 
twenty-five ;  in  fact,  twenty-five  is  the  usual  figure.  This  results 
at  once  in  the  nomination  of  a  large  number  of  candidates ;  then 
the  dilemma  to  settle  is,  which  candidates  should  win?  Obviously 
it  would  not  do  to  let  all  of  these  candidates  go  on  the  ballot,  and 
leave  it  in  the  usual  way  for  a  plurality,  which  might,  after  all,  be 
only  a  small  fraction  of  the  voters,  to  decide  the  issue.  Such  a  de¬ 
cision  might  or  might  not  be  acceptable  or  endurable  to  the  ma¬ 
jority.  When  a  candidate  is  elected  by  a  minority,  nobody  knows 
whether  he  is  on  the  whole  the  preference  of  the  majority  or  not. 
Mayor  Barry,  for  example,  at  the  last  election  had  less  than  half  the 
votes  cast  for  mayor.  His  vote,  though  a  plurality,  was  a  minority, 


58 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  [Oct. 


his  two  opponents  having  together  more  votes  than  he.  The  same 
is  true  of  Mayor  Fitzgerald  of  Boston.  He  had  47,172  votes  ;  his 
three  opponents  together,  48,184.  A  more  striking  illustration  of 
the  absurdity  of  the  old  system  occurred  in  a  recent  election  in 
Salem,  when  Mayor  Howard  was  elected  by  1800  votes  out  of  a 
total  of  7200.  There  were  five  candidates,  the  vote  was  close, 
and  1800  sufficed  for  a  plurality  and  an  election.  Nobody  knew 
whether  Mayor  Howard  was  the  man  the  citizens  of  Salem  wanted 
or  not.  To  win  by  this  system  one  need  only  to  be  the  favorite  of 
the  largest  single  group  or  organization.  Nothing  could  be  more 
dangerous.  We  have  hitherto  striven  against  this  danger,  and  by 
one  arbitrary  means  or  another  kept  the  number  of  nominees  low  — 
a  practice  directly  in  violation  of  the  cardinal  democratic  principle 
of  readily  secured  nominations  and  a  wide  choice  for  the  electorate. 
The  excessive  number  of  5000  signatures  required  in  Boston  arose 
no  doubt  partly  from  the  fancied  necessity  of  keeping  its  number 
of  nominees  down.  Setting  the  required  number  of  signatures  low 
forced  a  radical  change  in  practice.  The  expected,  desired,  and 
resulting  large  number  of  nominees  made  it  absolutely  necessary. 

So  what  they  did  in  Des  Moines  was  to  resort  to  the  system  of 
double  elections,  long  familiar  in  western  Europe,  —  to  have  two 
elections  instead  of  one,  —  a  primary  and  a  final  election,  each  re¬ 
quiring  an  election  day.  At  the  primary  election  the  names  of  all 
the  candidates  appear  on  the  ballot,  arranged  alphabetically  or  by 
lot,  and  each  voter  puts  a  cross  after  the  name  of  his  first  choice  for 
an  office.  The  two  highest  candidates  then  appear  on  the  final 
ballot  some  days  or  weeks  later,  all  the  rest  having  been  dropped, 
and  the  voters  are  forced  to  choose  between  these  two.  This  is 
the  plurality  system,  thinly  disguised,  with  a  great  premium  on 
organization  and  machine  work. 

In  Grand  Junction  they  said  :  “What  is  the  use  of  two  elections ? 
Cannot  we  manage  this  with  one  election  and  do  it  a  great  deal 
more  neatly  and  safely,  besides?  We  will  arrange  it  so  that  the 
voter  can  mark  not  only  his  first  and  second  choice  for  any  one 
office,  but  as  many  “  other  choices  ”  as  he  likes.  This  will  enable  the 
voter  to  support  every  one  of  perhaps  a  large  number  of  good  can¬ 
didates,  as  against  the  machine  or  undesirable  candidates.  It 
will  also  destroy  largely  or  entirely  the  great  advantage  long  en- 


1911.]  HISTORY,  ETC.,  OF  PROPOSED  NEW  CHARTER  59 


BALLOT  ILLUSTRATING  PREFERENTIAL  VOTING 

As  Embodied  in  the  Proposed  New  Charter  for  Cambridge,  Mass. 

INSTRUCTIONS.  —  To  vote  for  a  candidate  make  a  cross  (X)  in  the  appropriate 
space. 

Vote  your  FIRST  choice  in  the  FIRST  column. 

Vote  your  SECOND  choice  in  the  SECOND  column. 

Vote  ONLY  ONE  FIRST  choice  and  ONLY  ONE  SECOND  choice  for  any  one 
office. 

Vote  in  the  THIRD  column  for  ALL  THE  OTHER  CANDIDATES  whom  you 
wish  to  support 

DO  NOT  VOTE  MORE  THAN  ONE  CHOICE  FOR  ONE  PERSON,  as  only 
one  choice  will  count  for  any  candidate. 

If  you  wrongly  mark,  tear  or  deface  this  ballot,  return  it  and  obtain  another. 

ONE  MAN  TO  BE  ELECTED  FOR  EACH  OFFICE 


Supervisor 
of  Administration 
(Mayor) 

First 

Choice 

Second 

Choice 

Other 

Choices 

Charles  E.  Hughes 

Champ  Clark 

John  A.  O’Gorman 

Nelson  W.  Aldrich 

Richard  Croker 

Robert  L.  Owen 

William  H.  Taft 

Joseph  W.  Folk 

Robert  M.  LaFollette 

Woodrow  Wilson 

William  J.  Bryan 

Chauncey  M.  Depew 

Theodore  Roosevelt 

Supervisor  of 
Finance 

Bourke  Cockran 

Leslie  B.  Shaw 

John  A.  Sullivan 

Nathan  Matthews 

Supervisor  of 
Public  Works 

First 

Choice 

Second 

Choice 

Other 

Choices 

Guy  C.  Emerson 

John  Mitchell 

Stephen  O’Meara 

Supervisor  of 
Health 

H.  W.  Wiley 

Supervisor  of 
Public  Property 

Gifford  Pinchot 

Richard  A.  Ballinger 

60 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  [Oct. 


joyed  by  the  machine,  and,  moreover,  eliminate  the  objection  to  a 
large  number  of  candidates.’’ 

The  sample  ballot  (page  59)  which  has  been  distributed  shows 
how  the  ballot  would  actually  look. 

Now,  this  method  of  election  not  only  does  away  with  primaries, 
but  it  does  a  number  of  things  besides.  It  means  that  a  man  may 
accept  nomination  for  office  without  there  being  incumbent  upon 
him  the  necessity  for  spending  money,  without  even  making  a 
speech  if  he  does  not  want  to.  Now  we  well  know  that  some 
of  the  most  desirable  candidates,  particularly  for  city  office,  are  not 
speech-makers  and  cannot  or  do  not  wish  to  spend  money,  and 
above  all  things  do  not  wish  to  put  themselves  in  the  position  of 
having  their  motives  misunderstood  or  misrepresented,  or  go 
out  asking  for  votes.  Under  this  ballot  a  large  number  of  nomi¬ 
nees  appear,  and  it  is  of  no  consequence,  presumably,  that  any  par¬ 
ticular  one  should  win.  It  is  important  only  that  some  one  of  the 
right  type  should  win.  Under  the  old  system  the  candidate’s  fail¬ 
ure  is  his  party’s  failure,  something  supposed  by  his  supporters  to 
bring  great  disappointment  and  harm.  The  new  system  eliminates 
that  excess  of  strain  and  responsibility  upon  the  candidate.  No 
one  man  is  singled  out  as  a  target  for  abuse  or  mud-slinging,  unless, 
at  least,  the  case  against  him  is  pretty  strong.  In  fact,  the  incen¬ 
tive  is  the  other  way.  Unnecessary  offense  to  voters  whose  second 
or  other  choice  votes,  if  not  first,  are  being  angled  for,  is  obviously 
to  be  avoided.  In  short,  it  goes  a  long  way  toward  solving  the 
problem  of  making  standing  for  office  attractive  to  the  right  kind 
of  citizens,  whom  we  have  found  it  hitherto  hard  to  attract. 

Another  thing  that  this  ballot  does  will  be  a  relief  to  the  much 
berated  element  which  has  ideals,  conscientious  scruples,  and  dif¬ 
ferences  of  opinion  which  lead  to  splits  and  which  handicap  them  so 
severely  in  any  effort  against  unscrupulous  solidarity.  It  enables 
any  body  of  voters  automatically,  quietly,  and  painlessly  to  get  to¬ 
gether  behind  some  candidate  more  or  less  perfectly  representing 
the  general  views  of  that  group.  It  practically  eliminates  the 
danger,  usually  fatal,  of  a  split  ticket,  avoided  readily  enough  by 
steam-roller  methods  of  a  machine,  but  not  so  easily  avoided  by 
people  with  scruples,  self-respect,  and  pride. 

Now  those  who  feel  hopeful  of  getting  decent  city  government  in 
this  country  base  their  hope  on  the  faith  that  those  who  want  the  city 


1911.]  HISTORY,  ETC.,  OF  PROPOSED  NEW  CHARTER  61 


run  right  are  in  the  majority,  divided  usually,  however,  into  hostile 
camps  by  party  lines  based  on  nothing  more  important  than  which 
of  two  factions  shall  hold  the  city  jobs  and  hand  out  the  city  favors. 
Now,  if  we  can  eliminate  the  false  party  issue  and  get  the  majority 
of  the  city  together,  as  has  been  found  possible  in  other  cities,  we 
shall  have  accomplished  a  great  thing.  With  this  ballot  the  num¬ 
ber  of  candidates  may  be  large  and  include  plenty  of  the  best  of  all 
parties  or  no  party,  and  in  this  way  somebody  satisfactory  to  the 
majority  is  sure  to  win  if  there  is  anybody  in  the  list  who  is  suf¬ 
ficiently  well  and  favorably  known  to  secure  the  support  of  the 
majority ;  and  if  there  is  not,  we  get  the  next  best  thing,  and  the 
best  possible  with  that  list  of  nominees  ;  that  is,  the  candidate  who 
among  all  the  others  commands  the  largest  following  after  a  free 
and  full  expression  of  choice  by  the  voters.  The  voter,  no  longer 
limited  to  one  choice,  no  longer  has  to  treat  all  other  acceptable 
candidates  just  as  he  does  the  most  objectionable  men  in  the  list. 
Thus,  numerous  candidates  will  no  longer  split  up  the  votes  of  a 
majority  and  contribute  to  the  election  of  a  plurality  man  who  is 
earnestly  opposed  by  the  majority.  With  the  proposed  ballot  each 
voter  may  vote  for  as  many  of  the  nominees  as  he  likes  and  a 
plurality  election  cannot  be  obtained  in  defiance  of  the  wishes  of 
the  majority,  unless  all  the  candidates  are  objectionable. 

The  ballot  that  has  been  handed  around  has  on  it  the  names  of 
thirteen  candidates  for  mayor.  I  will  improvise  a  ballot  here  to 
show  how  the  marking  is  done. 


For  Mayor 

First 

Choice 

Second 

Choice 

Other 

Choices 

Smith 

X 

Doe 

X 

Mason 

Sikes 

Roe 

X 

Asquith 

Jones 

X 

Robinson 

X 

62 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  [Oct. 


I  suppose  there  is  a  list  of  eight  candidates  as  shown.  The  ar¬ 
rangement  of  names  is,  as  prescribed  by  the  proposed  charter,  by 
lot,  and  not  alphabetically. 

The  voter’s  task  is  this :  He  notes  the  name  of  candidate  Doe, 
whom  he  prefers  on  the  whole  to  any  cf  the  others.  So  he  votes 
a  first  choice  for  him  by  putting  a  cross  in  the  first  column  after 
his  name.  Then,  being  one  of  the  right  kind  of  citizen,  consci¬ 
entious  and  devoted  to  the  good  of  the  city,  he  looks  further  and 
notes  that  there  are  other  good  men  nominated :  that  if  Doe  should 
not  win  there  would  be  no  calamity.  Jones  is  a  good,  satisfactory 
sort  of  man.  He  would  put  him  next.  So  he  votes  a  second 
choice  for  Jones  by  putting  a  cross  in  the  second  column  after 
his  name.  Then  there  are  Robinson,  Smith,  and  Roe.  They  are 
also  competent  and  acceptable  men.  He  does  not  want  to  vote 
against  them,  and  so  he  votes  an  “  other  choice  ”  for  each  of  them 
by  marking  for  them  in  the  third  column.  Note  that  he  is  not 
facing  the  usually  impossible  task  of  grading  them  in  the  order 
of  his  preference.  This  ballot  makes  it  as  easy  as  possible  to  vote 
for  all  his  kind  of  candidates.  There  may  be  only  one,  or  two 
thoroughly  objectionable  candidates,  and  they  should  be  thoroughly 
voted  against  by  all  the  majority  voters  supporting  all  the  major¬ 
ity  type  of  candidate.  The  way  it  is  likely  to  be  is  this:  The 
boss  knows  very  well  that  strength  in  the  campaign  does  not  lie 
in  a  multiplicity  of  nominees  for  the  same  office,  and  he  there¬ 
fore  will  very  likely  be  successful  in  keeping  candidates  among 
his  faithful  down  to  one  or  two.  A  rival  boss  or  two  may  put  in 
candidates.  The  clientele  of  such  candidates  are  likely  to  bullet  — 
to  vote  for  their  own  men  and  no  others  —  and  split  the  selfish 
vote.  The  grafter  is  likely  to  want  one  candidate  and  no  other, 
for  personal  reasons,  and  so  will  vote  no  second  or  other  choices 
for  fear  of  beating  his  first  choice.  The  other  element  are  met 
by  no  such  dilemma.  They  should  mark  freely  for  all  good  candi¬ 
dates,  and  their  victory  is  doubly  assured  —  by  being  probably  in 
a  majority  anyway,  and  by  facing  a  factionally  and  selfishly  divided 
enemy.  Here  is  the  opportunity  for  self-respecting,  conscientious 
persons  to  get  together  in  such  a  way  as  to  save  the  votes  of  each 
and  every  one  of  them.  When  the  votes  are  counted,  they  may 
find  to  their  surprise,  as  in  Grand  Junction,  that  for  the  first  time 


1911.]  HISTORY,  ETC.,  OF  PROPOSED  NEW  CHARTER  63 


in  the  memory  of  men  they  have  won,  and  deservedly.  If  you 
will  look  at  the  little  slip  which  has  been  passed  around,  you 
will  see  how  it  worked  out.  The  slip  runs  as  follows : 

Practical  Working  of  Preferential  Voting 

Grand  Junction,  Colorado,  November  2,  1909 

Total  number  of  ballots  cast . 1,847 

Necessary  for  a  majority  .  . 924 


RESULT  OF  THE  VOTES  FOR  MAYOR 


1st 

Choice 

2d 

Choice 

Other 

Choices 

Combined 
lst’s  and 
2d’s 

Combined 
lst’s,  2d’s, 
Others 

D.  W.  Aupperle 

. 

465 

143 

145 

608 

753 

*  W.  H.  Bannister 

.  . 

603 

93 

43 

696 

739 

N.  A.  Lough 

.  . 

99 

231 

328 

330 

658 

*  E.  B.  Lutes 

.  . 

41 

114 

88 

155 

243 

E.  M.  Slocomb 

. 

229 

357 

326 

586 

912 

Thomas  M.  Todd  (Elected) 

362 

1,799 

293 

1,231 

396 

1,326 

655 

1,051 

The  two  starred  candidates  for  mayor,  Bannister  and  Lutes,  rep¬ 
resented  factions  of  the  reactionary  interests  against  whom  the 
new  charter  was  aimed,  the  former  being  the  strong  candidate  of 
that  sort.  The  progressive  opposition  was  divided  and  put  up 
four  candidates  for  the  place.  The  situation  was  much  the  same 
as  in  the  first  election  under  the  new  Boston  charter  —  with  the 
striking  difference  that  out  there,  Bannister,  the  Fitzgerald  of  that 
situation,  did  not  get  elected,  as  the  result  of  the  divided  opposi¬ 
tion,  or  otherwise.  There  were  1847  votes  cast,  and  in  order  to 
win  this  election  a  person  must  have  a  majority  (924)  in  first 
choices ;  or,  failing  that,  must  have  the  highest  number  of  firsts 
and  seconds  combined,  provided  it  is  a  majority ;  and  failing  that, 
the  one  getting  the  highest  total  of  all  choices  would  win.  The 
thoroughly  objectionable  candidate  led  in  first  choices,  as  was  to 
be  expected  under  the  circumstances,  and  under  our  Massachusetts 
way  of  doing  things,  he  would  have  been  regarded  the  winner. 
But,  as  the  figures  show,  he  had  only  a  few  over  a  third  of  the 
voters  behind  him.  The  vote  was  nearly  two  to  one  against  him. 


64 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  [Oct. 


Still  I  find  it  very  difficult  to  make  Cambridge  politicians  see 
why  Bannister  should  not  win.  They  not  unnaturally  profess  to 
feel  outraged  that  so  strong  a  candidate  was  not  seated.  You  will 
see  that  his  opposition  of  about  1150  voters  were  simply  divided 
into  three  or  four  camps,  but,  thanks  to  the  form  of  election,  they 
suffered  no  penalty  and  secured  a  mayor  acceptable  to  them,  with , 
two  other  candidates  leading  their  arch  enemy  Bannister. 

To  be  more  precise  at  this  important  point,  and  at  the  risk  of  re¬ 
peating  to  a  slight  extent  for  the  sake  of  perfect  clearness,  I  wish 
to  add  the  following  few  comments  on  that  election. 

The  starred  men  were  the  anti-charter  and  minority  candidates  ; 
the  others  the  pro-charter  and  majority  candidates. 

Omitting  reference  to  the  Grand  J unction  practice  of  “  dropping 
the  low  man,”  —  an  unessential  complication,  not  likely  to  be 
widely  adopted,  and  without  influence  on  this  result,  —  the  deci¬ 
sion  was  drawn  from  the  foregoing  figures  as  follows: 

There  being  no  majority  in  First  Choices,  the  Firsts  and  Sec¬ 
onds  were  added  together.  Then  the  leading  candidate,  Bannister, 
provided  he  had  had  a  majority,  would  have  won. 

There  being  no  majority  by  combined  Firsts  and  Seconds,  the 
First,  Second  and  Other  Choices  were  added  together,  and  Todd, 
the  candidate  then  leading,  won. 

Under  the  usual  system  the  minority  would  have  beaten  the  ma¬ 
jority  and  elected  Bannister. 

Under  the  Berkeley,  Des  Moines,  Haverhill,  or  Lynn  plan,  that 
of  second  elections,  there  would  have  resulted  a  bitter  contest  be¬ 
tween  Aupperle  and  Bannister,  and  a  forced  choice  between  two 
candidates,  neither  of  whom  had  a  majority  of  the  people  behind 
him.  Moreover  the  practical  certainty  of  having  to  go  through 
such  a  campaign  in  order  to  be  elected  may  well  deter  most  men  of 
the  desirable  sort  from  accepting  a  nomination.  Such  an  ordeal  is 
no  legitimate  test  of  fitness  for  office.  It  has  few  terrors  for  the 
cheap  self-seeker,  but  does  deter  the  candidates  we  need.  It  is  one 
of  the  great  evils  of  our  old  style  politics  from  which  the  system  of 
second  elections  does  not  free  us,  but  which  the  preferential  system 
in  great  measure,  at  least,  destroys. 

One  of  the  features  of  all  our  charter  meetings  is  to  hold  a  mock 
election  which  shows  exactly  how  this  new  system  of  election 


1911.]  HISTORY,  ETC.,  OF  PROPOSED  NEW  CHARTER  65 


works.  When  this  method  of  voting  was  first  proposed,  we  used 
to  hear  occasional  remarks  about  its  being  complicated.  At  the 
suggestion  of  a  lady  much  interested  in  the  charter,  it  was  proposed 
that  we  make  a  practice  from  the  start  of  giving  the  voters  an 
opportunity  actually  to  vote  such  a  ballot.  This  had  the  expected 
effect.  No  talk  of  the  ballot  being  complicated  ever  comes  from  a 
voter  who  has  had  a  chance  to  try  it.  The  only  opposition  left  is 
that  readily  ascribable  to  a  firm  belief  that  it  would  actually  work 
as  intended.  In  other  words,  the  opposition  is  now  confined  to 
the  machine  politicians,  and  those  in  their  train.  Even  they  make 
little  effort  to  make  it  appear  that  it  is  complicated. 

You  will  now  be  given  an  opportunity  to  hold  such  a  mock 
election,  using  the  ballots  which  have  been  distributed.  One 
vote  in  the  first  column  for  first  choice ;  one  vote  in  the  sec¬ 
ond  column  for  second  choice.  You  are  not  compelled  to  vote 
against  your  second  and  other  choices,  as  under  the  present  system. 
With  only  one  vote  you  have  to  treat  all  but  your  first  choice  — 
good,  bad,  and  indifferent  —  alike ;  and  under  the  new  system  of 
nominations  there  may  be  a  dozen  in  the  running  for  whom  you 
would  be  prouder  to  vote  than  any  that  come  up  under  the  present 
system.  This  ballot  enables  a  voter  to  vote  for  all  candidates  of  an 
acceptable  type  and  against  all  candidates  of  other  types,  and  thus, 
with  the  direct  nomination  power,  for  the  first  time  to  express  him¬ 
self  satisfactorily  at  the  polls.  All  this  ought  to  help  to  arouse 
interest  in  politics  among  those  who  have  lost  it,  or  who,  for  better 
reason  than  they  were  aware  of,  never  could  get  interested. 

Will  you  please  mark  your  ballots  ? 

If  the  ballots  are  ready  and  if  you  will  be  good  enough  to  pass 
them  to  the  aisles  they  will  be  collected  and  counted.  It  will  not 
take  very  long  to  produce  the  results.1 

We  observe  that  the  prime  reason  that  the  public  will  has  not 
prevailed  in  our  cities  is  because  selfish  interests  have  succeeded  in 
getting  in  between  the  people  and  their  business.  Those  minor 
interests  generally  operate  through  the  political  party  machine. 
Now  the  machine  is  a  necessity  under  our  cumbersome  system. 

1  The  result  of  this  mock  election  was  soon  reached  by  tellers  and  announced 
to  the  audience.  The  result  was  of  no  permanent  value  and  so  is  not  recorded, 
but  the  experiment  appeared  to  give  complete  satisfaction  to  the  meeting. 


66 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  [Oct. 


The  traditional  ramshackle  form  of  government  could  not  be  run 
without  it.  But  its  largely  irresponsible  character,  its  great  power, 
and  its  need  for  money  make  it  a  tempting  mark  and  in  many  cases 
an  easy  prey  for  those  who  find  cash  returns  in  making  the  city 
government  serve  their  private  ends  to  the  injury  of  the  mass  of 
citizens. 

To  correct  this  kind  of  evil  the  system  of  nomination  above  de¬ 
scribed  goes  a  long  way.  The  elimination  of  the  party  label  helps 
also.  Together  they  go  far  to  destroy  monopoly  of  nominations. 
The  preferential  ballot  strikes  at  the  likelihood  of  electing  such 
candidates  as  the  machines  put  on  the  ballot,  and  brings  into  the 
field  against  them  citizens  of  a  type  whom  it  was  perfectly  unrea¬ 
sonable  to  ask  to  run  under  the  old  system. 

To  back  up  all  this  the  short  ballot  principle  is  introduced. 
This  greatly  aids  the  voter,  and  still  further  works  against  the  ma¬ 
chine  system.  The  idea  on  which  the  short  ballot  is  based  is  to  fill 
by  popular  election  so  few  offices  and  only  such  important  and 
conspicuous  ones  as  will  get  and  hold  the  critical  interest  of  the 
voter.  The  five  supervisors  proposed  in  this  charter,  in  place  of  the 
thirty-four  now  chosen  by  popular  vote  to  do  the  same  work,  fall  in 
with  this  principle  —  and  this  point  is  much  intensified  by  the  fact 
that  they  go  out  of  office  only  one  or  two  per  year,  leaving  only  one 
or  two  to  be  elected  in  any  one  year,  and,  including  the  school  com¬ 
mittee,  only  three  to  four  city  offices  to  be  filled  by  the  voters  in 
any  one  year.  The  ballots  as  passed  around,  calling  for  the  filling 
of  all  five  supervisors  at  one  election,  would  appear  only  at  the  first 
election  under  the  charter. 

Under  the  proposed  charter,  five  supervisors  replace  the  mayor, 
board  of  aldermen,  and  common  council  —  thirty-four  men  in  all  — 
and  have  all  the  executive  and  legislative  powers  of  the  city,  save 
such  as  are  reserved  to  the  school  committee  and  the  people  them¬ 
selves,  as  I  will  explain  later.  Any  fifty  citizens  can  put  on  the 
ballot  the  name  of  the  candidate  acceptable  to  them,  and  he  accepts 
the  nomination  on  just  as  good  terms  as  any  body  of  politicians 
can  confer.  There  is  no  party  label  to  float  the  nominees  into 
power  in  the  face  of  incompetence,  previous  obscurity,  or  bad 
record. 

All  this  puts  the  government  right  into  the  hands  of  the  people, 


1911.]  HISTORY,  ETC.,  OF  PROPOSED  NEW  CHARTER  67 


with  fair  hope  of  success.  With  men  in  positions  of  great  pub¬ 
licity,  the  opportunity  to  get  credit  for  good  work  is  a  powerful 
incentive.  The  spirit  of  this  modern  democratic  movement  is  that 
human  nature  is  pretty  sure  to  be  sound,  but  that  it  should  be 
given  at  least  half  a  chance.  If  we  put  these  carefully  selected 
men  in  a  position  of  power,  where  the  good  they  do  will  be  appre¬ 
ciated  and  credited  to  the  right  ones,  we  shall  get  good  results. 
There  is  an  opportunity  for  good  to  be  done,  some  of  it  long 
neglected,  in  any  city.  Cambridge  is  no  exception. 

Then,  under  the  proposed  charter,  the  people  themselves  are 
given  power,  if  anything  seriously  objectionable  happens  or  is 
threatened,  to  step  in  and  exert  direct  control  of  their  business, 
through  the  Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall.  These  are  the  best 
means  that  have  been  devised  for  such  emergency  work,  and  they 
have  already  done  great  service  in  this  country  and  elsewhere. 
They  furnish  the  means  for  final  and  effective  control  that  the 
public  requires  for  its  safety. 

Then  we  provide  a  reasonably  long  term  for  these  supervisors, 
three  years,  in  which  a  man  can  learn  his  business  and  work  out 
and  execute  a  policy.  We  propose  to  pay  a  salary  large  enough 
so  that  men  of  the  type  generally  believed  to  be  capable  of  doing 
this  work  could  at  least  live  on  it.  Then,  by  this  system  of 
elections,  by  which  a  man  can  take  a  nomination  with  a  minimum 
of  risk  to  peace  of  mind,  pocket,  or  reputation,  we  could  hope  to 
get  the  right  kind  of  man  into  office.  We  have  given  them  great 
power  to  do  desirable  things,  and  the  least  possible  power  to  do  un¬ 
desirable  things.  We  have  arranged  it  so  that  credit  would  go  to 
whom  credit  is  due.  We  have  arranged  it  so  that  the  government 
and  the  citizens  shall  be  in  the  closest  possible  relations,  so  that  citi¬ 
zens  with  right  purposes  can  be  of  the  greatest  possible  effective¬ 
ness  with  the  least  possible  sacrifice.  This  will  train  the  citizens 
to  increasing  efficiency,  and  make  good  results  permanent,  and  in 
large  degree  self-sustaining. 

In  this  charter  we  have  brought  together  all  the  best  features  of 
work  of  the  last  decade  of  American  city  charter  making,  carefully 
adapted  to  Cambridge  and  Massachusetts  conditions. 

We  have  in  this  charter  these  characteristics  which  have  been 
productive  of  nothing  but  success  so  far  in  this  country,  and  it  is 


68 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  [Oct. 


believed  that  they  are  sound  principles,  namely,  simplicity,  concen¬ 
tration  of  authority  and  responsibility,  and  responsiveness  to  the 
public  will. 

At  this  point  it  seems  appropriate  to  record  the  names  of  the  four 
others  included  with  the  speaker  in  the  group  of  five  who  took  it 
upon  themselves  to  prepare  the  original  draft  of  the  charter  and 
introduce  it  into  the  legislature  in  the  session  of  1910.  They  were 
Lawrence  G.  Brooks,  Arthur  N.  Holcombe,  John  R.  Nichols,  and 
Russell  A.  Wood.  F.  Lowell  Kennedy  also  gave  the  work  cordial 
and  important  encouragement  from  the  start,  and  appeared  as  one 
of  the  petitioners  for  the  bills  in  the  legislature.  Messrs.  Hol¬ 
combe  and  Nichols,  not  at  that  time  registered  voters  in  Cam¬ 
bridge  though  since  having  become  such,  did  not  appear  in  the  list 
of  these  four  petitioners.  Of  course,  many  others ,  too  numerous  to 
mention  here,  and  generally  included  in  published  lists  of  commit¬ 
tees  of  the  Charter  Association,  helped  with  encouragement  and 
suggestions  of  the  greatest  value,  but  out  of  this  long  list  no  one 
who  knows  the  high  quality  and  great  extent  of  his  unheralded 
assistance  as  counselor  and  executive  will  grudge  a  special  record 
here  of  the  name  of  Reginald  Mott  Hull. 

Now,  as  an  illustration  of  how  charters  of  this  kind  actually 
operate,  the  experience  in  Spokane  may  interest  you.  There  is  a 
city  the  size  of  Cambridge,  with  five  offices  to  fill,  each  office  with 
a  four-year  term,  each  with  a  five-thousand-dollar  salary,  requiring 
for  nomination  only  twenty-five  signatures.  The  result  was  ninety- 
two  candidates  for  five  offices,  offering  an  adequate  range  of  choice 
to  the  voters.  The  number  of  votes  cast  was  22,058;  7000  women 
had  registered  in  the  few  months  that  had  elapsed  since  their  en¬ 
franchisement  by  the  state.  This  was  their  first  election  of  any 
kind,  and  the  first  experience  of  the  men  with  this  kind  of  ballot. 
There  was  no  difficulty  and  no  confusion.  Of  those  ninety-two 
candidates,  the  five  men  who  won  had  none  of  them  held  an  elec¬ 
tive  city  office.  The  politicians  were  down  and  out.  The  citizens 
for  the  first  time  in  their  history  had  a  chance  at  something  differ¬ 
ent  and  seized  upon  it.  The  highest  man,  Robert  Fairley,  got  a 
majority  of  first-choice  votes.  He  was  the  only  one  who  did. 
Moreover,  he  had  the  support  in  first,  second,  or  other  choices  of 
three  quarters  of  the  voters  in  the  city.  He  had  become  widely 


1911.]  HISTORY,  ETC.,  OF  PROPOSED  NEW  CHARTER  69 


and  favorably  known  as  an  appointive  city  officer.  He  had  long 
served  as  city  comptroller. 

The  four  men  next  in  favor  were  as  follows : 

No.  2  in  popular  choice,  W.  J.  Hindley,  was  a  leading  Congre¬ 
gational  clergyman.  He  had  never  been  in  public  life  before  ex¬ 
cept  as  a  leader  in  the  single  tax  movement,  and  an  active,  virile 
defender  of  civic  righteousness  generally.  A  fine  orator,  and  widely 
respected. 

The  next  man,  C.  M.  Fassett,  was  the  President  of  the  Spokane 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  one  of  the  most  successful  and  most  re¬ 
spected  business  men  of  the  Northwest,  like  Mr.  Hindley,  a  single¬ 
taxer.  He  was  elected  during  his  absence  from  the  city,  indicat¬ 
ing  a  kind  of  politics  we  have  not  yet  enjoyed  in  this  part  of  the 
country.  He  took  no  part  in  the  campaign  beyond  signing  his 
acceptance  of  the  nomination,  and  writing  two  or  three  letters 
home  which  were  published  in  the  local  papers. 

The  next,  D.  C.  Coates,  had  been  a  leader  in  the  charter  cam¬ 
paign,  formerly  Lieutenant-Governor  of  Colorado,  member  of  a 
typographical  union,  a  socialist  who  had  won  the  respect  and  con¬ 
fidence  of  former  opponents  and  of  the  public  generally. 

The  fifth,  L.  A.  Hayden,  was  a  prominent  lumberman,  a  very 
successful  man  of  high  ideals. 

None  of  these  four,  by  the  way,  was  then  sufficiently  widely 
known  -to  secure  the  votes  of  a  majority,  even  upon  the  addition 
of  first,  second,  and  other  choices. 

The  correspondent  who  furnished  me  the  foregoing  information 
was  careful  to  point  out  that  they  were  not  only  men  of  responsi¬ 
bility  and  standing,  but  they  were  men  of  high  civic  spirit,  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  public  good.  Those  five  men  were  chosen,  and  the 
people  were  delighted  not  only  with  the  result,  but  with  the  high 
tone  of  the  campaign. 

You  do  not  strike  a  politician  until  you  get  to  No.  13.  Not  only 
the  first  five,  but  the  first  twelve  names  in  the  list  were  names  of 
people  who  had  never  been  in  elective  office ;  they  were  men,  suc¬ 
cessful  in  business  and  ordinary  vocations,  of  a  type  quite  different 
from  the  ordinary  politician.  The  ex-mayor,  the  man  who  was 
mayor  when  the  charter  was  adopted,  was  a  man  against  whom 
little  or  nothing  could  be  said,  but  he  was  a  member  of  the  old 


70 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  [Oct. 


regime  and  came  in  no  better  than  thirteenth.  No.  17  was  the  next 
of  a  similar  type,  and  so  on  down.  The  fact  remains  that  Spokane 
has  had  an  entire  change  in  the  rules,  and  they  are  very  pleased 
with  it. 

We  may  take  a  little  satisfaction  here  in  Cambridge  from  the 
fact  that  they  adopted  this  preferential  ballot  in  Spokane  very 
largely  because  they  knew  it  had  obtained  such  favor  here  in  Cam¬ 
bridge  ;  it  is  very  gratifying  to  me  to  feel  that  we  here  in  Cambridge 
have  helped  teach  the  Pacific  Slope  progressivism.  They  simply 
worked  out  the  charter  and  voted  on  it  and  got  it  into  operation  in 
a  total  campaign  of  six  months.  But  there  they  require  no  action 
by  the  legislature  for  such  a  step.  They  have  home  rule  for  cities. 

Here  in  Cambridge  we  mean  that  these  five  supervisors  shall  be 
elected  to  specific  office.  Each  candidate  knows  what  office  he  is 
to  fill,  and  the  voter  knows  to  what  office  he  is  electing  him.  This 
is  no  attempt  to  elect  experts,  but  to  secure  men  interested, in  their 
departments,  with  a  taste  for  their  work,  and  in  a  position  of  re¬ 
sponsibility  to  the  voters  for  its  execution.  This  is  worth  a  mo¬ 
ment’s  notice,  for  it  is  a  somewhat  new  idea,  but  likely  to  gain 
in  favor.  Grand  Junction,  Lynn,  and  Oklahoma  City  already 
enjoy  this  system,  and  Haverhill’s  experience  with  the  more 
usual  system  led  Lynn  to  take  the  step.  The  usual  practice  has 
been  to  nominate  the  men  and  elect  five  of  them  merely  to  the 
council  at  random  to  parcel  out  the  work  among  themselves  as 
best  they  may  —  a  practice  tending  to  irresponsibility  and  ineffi 
ciency  unless  exceptional  men  are  put  in  power. 

Now,  having  devoted  so  much  time  to  the  history  and  contents 
of  the  proposed  new  charter  for  Cambridge,  it  becomes  an  easy  and 
short  task,  in  closing,  to  point  out  its  meaning. 

It  opens  the'brightest  opportunity  we  have  ever  had  in  this  city 
for  an  actual  realization  of  the  principles  laid  down  a  century  and 
a  third  ago  in  this  city,  on  the  soil  of  this  University,  by  a  graduate 
of  this  University,  John  Adams,  and  ratified  by  the  people  of  this 
Commonwealth  as  the  foundation  of  their  organic  law,  namely: 

“  All  power  residing  originally  in  the  people,  and  being  derived  from 
them,  the  several  magistrates  and  officers  of  government,  vested  with 
authority,  whether  legislative,  executive,  or  judicial,  are  their  substitutes 
and  agents,  and  are  at  all  times  accountable  to  them.  .  .  . 


1911.]  HISTORY,  ETC.,  OF  PROPOSED  NEW  CHARTER  71 

“  In  order  to  prevent  those  who  are  vested  with  authority  from  be¬ 
coming  oppressors,  the  people  have  a  right,  at  such  periods  and  in  such 
manner  as  they  shall  establish  by  their  frame  of  government,  to  cause 
their  public  officers  to  return  to  private  life  ;  and  to  fill  up  vacant  places 
by  certain  and  regular  elections  and  appointments.  .  .  . 

“  Government  is  instituted  for  the  common  good  ;  for  the  protection, 
safety,  prosperity,  and  happiness  of  the  people ;  and  not  for  the  profit, 
honor,  or  private  interest  of  any  one  man,  family,  or  class  of  men.” 

These  are  principles  as  impregnable  to-day  as  when  they  were 
written.  In  fact,  I  think  it  may  be  said  that  their  violation,  par¬ 
ticularly  the  violation  of  the  last  sentence  quoted,  is  the  cause  in 
a  nutshell  of  our  political  and  economic  troubles.  I  think  we  need 
no  new  doctrine,  only  effective  ways  to  get  the  old  doctrine  into 
effect.  To  get  the  full  result  desired  we  must,  in  these  later  days, 
add  two  things,  —  more  effective  means  for  the  use  of  the  people 
in  asserting  their  supremacy,  and  more  favorable  conditions  for  the 
development  of  the  right  leadership.  The  people  must  have  more 
power  to  do  with,  and  more  knowledge  what  to  do  against  those 
who  would  pervert  government  to  the  profit  of  some  one  man  or 
set  of  men.  This  charter,  I  consider,  includes  a‘s  complete  a  list  as 
is  to-day  practicable  of  what  the  people  must  have  to  secure  the 
requisite  power.  The  existence  of  this  power,  within  the  reach  of 
all  the  citizens,  will  foster  and  develop  the  leadership,  if  anything 
will,  —  our  great  educational  system,  and  the  memory  and  example 
of  the  unselfish  leaders  of  the  past  greatly  assisting. 

The  nine  striking  features  of  the  charter  which,  I  believe,  will 
operate  so  powerfully  to  bring  into  effect  the  purposes  of  our  Mas¬ 
sachusetts  Bill  of  Rights  are  : 

1.  Direct  and  Easy  Nominations,  without  regard  to  ward  lines : 
to  check  party  domination  and  give  voters  wide  choice. 

2.  Short  Ballot :  to  permit  easy  and  intelligent  voting. 

3.  Preferential  Voting:  to  eliminate  primaries,  to  encourage 
competent  men  to  stand  for  office,  and  to  permit  a  real  choice  from 
a  large  number  of  candidates,  with  minimum  cost  and  effort. 

4.  Long  Term  and  Adequate  Salary :  to  render  public  office  ac¬ 
ceptable  to  competent  men. 

5.  Small,  compact  Council  with  large  powers,  combining  the  ex¬ 
ecutive  and  legislative  functions :  to  secure  efficiency. 


72 


THE  CAMBRIDGE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  [Oct. 


6.  Publicity 

7.  The  Initiative  to  permit  effective  control  of  city  affairs  by 

8.  The  Referendum  the  voters. 

9.  The  Recall 

This  list,  if  supplemented  by  two  other  items,  would  include  about 
the  whole  that  has  been  accomplished  since  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution  of  this  Commonwealth  in  the  way  of  improved  gov¬ 
ernmental  machinery  and  practices,  and  little  in  this  list  dates  in 
this  country  at  least  from  before  the  last  decade. 

The  two  items  which  I  have  not  mentioned  and  which  it  is  a  par¬ 
ticular  pleasure  to  mention  here  in  this  presence  —  in  the  presence 
of  your  President,  Mr.  Dana,  who  has  so  efficiently  led  in  their 
adoption  —  are  the  merit  system  and  the  Australian  ballot,  and 
without  the  latter,  at  least,  this  charter  could  not  have  come  to 
pass. 

More  still  must  be  done  to  complete  this  kind  of  work  in  State 
and  nation,  and  various  corrupting  economic  fallacies  and  abuses 
must  be  eliminated  from  our  thought  and  life  before  we  can  secure 
permanent  security  and  peace,  but,  whatever  form  such  work  may 
take,  I  believe  it  is*  bound  to  be  part  and  parcel  with  this  charter 
in  attempting  to  establish  a  government  “  for  the  common  good  ; 
for  the  protection,  safety,  prosperity,  and  happiness  of  the  people  ; 
and  not  for  the  profit,  honor,  or  private  interest  of  any  one  man, 
family,  or  class  of  men.” 


